TCFHE Press Release: The Sound of Music 45th Anniversary (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Rob_Ray

I've always been curious as to how she felt about the success of "The Sound of Music" and the film in general. Here she was a leading lady from about 1945 through about 1960 making films such as "Between Two Worlds," "Caged," "The Man with the Golden Arm" and "Interrupted Melody" and most people today remember her for a relatively small supporting role in a movie in which Julie Andrews' screen presence made everyone else seem superfluous. On top of that, she gave an incredibly nuanced performance which was overlooked by the Academy in favor of Peggy Wood's admittedly fine, but far less challenging role. And when people talk about the tilm, she's seldom ever mentioned. Case in point: the announcement that Julie, Chris and the seven children would be appearing on Oprah was phrased with the words "the entire cast."


I wish she'd talk more about her experiences in making the film, her reaction to its reception and its place in her body of work. I assume she had a good working relationship with Mr. Wise as they had worked together years before and she came on board at the last minute when other actresses proved unavailable. But I've never heard her thoughts about the film in general.


I've always felt she was seriously overlooked as an actress and her work in this film deserves better recognition.

Perhaps we should should start a Facebook campaign and letter writing to Oprah to include Miss Parker in the reunion. She is a very overlook actress today and needs rediscovering. I would love for TCM to do something with her before it is too late.

 

[jerauf]

From what I understand, Eleanor Parker rarely grants interviews. I heard a phone interview with her from a couple of years ago. She was fairly feisty but it was the first time she'd been interviewed in several years (by her choice). And, if I recall correctly, part of the agreement to the interview was that they not talk about The Sound of Music. Even if that's not true, she's never publicly discussed the film.

 

[MatthewA]

In the book "The Sound of Music: The Making of America's Favorite Movie" (did they do a poll?) by Julia Antopol Hirsch, she is quoted as being very proud of the film.

 

[warnerbro]

I noticed on the Julie Andrews commentary for the last DVD when Eleanor Parker appeared on screen, the only thing Julie ever said was "what a beautiful dress." She never said another word about Eleanor Parker ever on any interview that I'm aware of.

 

[Nelson Au]

Saw a very short promo on Oprah of The Sound of Music reunion show.

Pretty cool to actually see Julie Andrews and Christorpher Plummer together on stage. And they built a staircase to sort of recreate the intro for each of the children. That's what it looked like the intent was, it was a short tease.

You know how these promos are, they try to sensationalize it to get you excited to tune in. Usually Oprah delivers and sometimes gets to surprise everyone with an unexpected extra. So who knows, with her influence, she may have convinced Parker to join in, if not in person, then via Skype.

 

[benbess]

I'm seeing this in the theater with my family on the big screen in a couple of weeks. Looking forward to it.

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by ahollis





Unfortunately the release is being handled by NCM (National Cinema Media) and will be a digital download through their equipment, which are the projectors used for the pre-show at certain theatre circuits, not the 2000K projectors that show the feature films. Warner's did this with The Wizard Of Oz a few years ago and it meet with limited success. Hopefully the problems have been worked out. Warner's is also going to try this again with The Exorcist early next month. If the companies really wanted to do it right they would be send the hard drive or download to a hard drive to the theatres and allow it to be shown only on digital screens (2k up to 4k). This is what Paramount did for the Grease Sing-A-Long this summer. We would then get a fairly good idea how the blu-ray will look, because the NCM presentation will not be in that league.

I saw the Grease Sing-A-Long this summer at the AMC Metreon in San Francisco, and I saw cue marks that suggested it was a 35mm print. It also looked like a smeary, overly DNR'ed 1080p transfer that was dumped onto film, yet they were calling it a "restoration". At least the singing covered up the myriad of problems with the 1998 sound re-mix.


I'm on the fence about whether to go to this screening. After what I heard about their screenings of The Wizard of Oz, it sounds like I didn't miss much there. I've already seen this film twice in 70mm, and the thought of having to hear people strain to hit that high note at the end of "Climb Every Mountain" sends shivers down my spine.


But the remaining wait for this Blu-ray will be one of the hardest I've ever had to endure.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by MatthewA





I saw the Grease Sing-A-Long this summer at the AMC Metreon in San Francisco, and I saw cue marks that suggested it was a 35mm print. It also looked like a smeary, overly DNR'ed 1080p transfer that was dumped onto film, yet they were calling it a "restoration". At least the singing covered up the myriad of problems with the 1998 sound re-mix.


I'm on the fence about whether to go to this screening. After what I heard about their screenings of The Wizard of Oz, it sounds like I didn't miss much there. I've already seen this film twice in 70mm, and the thought of having to hear people strain to hit that high note at the end of "Climb Every Mountain" sends shivers down my spine.


But the remaining wait for this Blu-ray will be one of the hardest I've ever had to endure.

A person at Paramount distribution told me they were only taking digital dates for the Grease Sing-A-Long. It is possible they made 35mm copy for circuits like AMC that have not converted many of their theatres to digital at this moment. AMC is a big big company and can get things done other circuits can't.

I saw it in digital and it appeared to be the Blu-ray transfer except the sing-a-long lyrics were in a different font.

 

[RobertSiegel]

The restoration was done at 8k and converted to a 4k master from the Todd-AO negative (for the first time): For those that have not yet seen the video, this will really excite you. Look at the picture quality, and also, notice the sound of the guitar Julie plays in Do Re Mi, it never sounded so clear.


http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150282259450612

Originally Posted by Brianruns10

/forum/thread/303509/tcfhe-press-release-the-sound-of-music-45th-anniversary-blu-ray#post_3724862

 

[benbess]

Really looking forward to this!


Does this give us hope for the restoration of other Todd-AO films, or is Sound in a special category?


I'm not sure why the earlier person was so adamant about 8k. Maybe I'm confused, but I thought our home systems, at 1080, are by definition 2k? Now 8k would indeed get more info from the super high resolution Todd-AO format, but I think that would only be visible in a theater....


I just read that Oklahoma was filmed not just in Todd, but 30 frames per second?? Has anyone here seen it this way? And if so, what does the 30 fps seem to do for the image?


I read that Cameron wanted to film Avatar at 30 fps, but the studio shot him down because it was going to add another 20m or so to the cost. I assume that for part 2 if he wants it he'll get it...

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by benbess

I just read that Oklahoma was filmed not just in Todd, but 30 frames per second?? Has anyone here seen it this way? And if so, what does the 30 fps seem to do for the image?

I have seen Oklahoma! twice in 70mm at 30 fps (the Cinemascope version was 24 fps). On the THX laserdisc, it felt like the motion was more fluid and faster than in 24 fps. I didn't really notice it in the print, which was made in the 1980s and had a yellowish tint throughout except for parts of "Many a New Day", where the negative was so faded they had to go to the B&W separations. When they finally restore it I hope we get a new 70mm print. They can't not do it for the first 65mm movie.

 

[RolandL]

Originally Posted by MatthewA




I have seen Oklahoma! twice in 70mm at 30 fps (the Cinemascope version was 24 fps). On the THX laserdisc, it felt like the motion was more fluid and faster than in 24 fps. I didn't really notice it in the print, which was made in the 1980s and had a yellowish tint throughout except for parts of "Many a New Day", where the negative was so faded they had to go to the B&W separations. When they finally restore it I hope we get a new 70mm print. They can't not do it for the first 65mm movie.

Oklahoma! was not the first 65mm movie - http://widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingto1.htm

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Originally Posted by benbess

I'm not sure why the earlier person was so adamant about 8k. Maybe I'm confused, but I thought our home systems, at 1080, are by definition 2k? Now 8k would indeed get more info from the super high resolution Todd-AO format, but I think that would only be visible in a theater....


I just read that Oklahoma was filmed not just in Todd, but 30 frames per second?? Has anyone here seen it this way? And if so, what does the 30 fps seem to do for the image?

Part of the reason for harvesting the image @ higher resolution is that downconversion from 8K, 6K, 4K, what have you, results in more detail being retained than if you go ahead and harvest @ 2K. It's the same reason why DVDs from HD transfers look better than those transferred in SD resolution, and why VistaVision films looked better than films shot flat 4-perf.


Think of it this way: what looks better? A 1080p image downrezzed to 720p, or a 480p image scaled up to 1080p? While the 480p image may have more lines, it's trying to fill in information that didn't exist in the first place (which can lead to questionable decisions being made by the scaling engine), while the 720p image is subtracting pixels to fit the display. It will look sharper and more faithful to the original image.


As for 30fps, this also results in a more detailed image (by virtue of using more film), and less judder than a 24fps film. Remember 24fps was chosen because it was the slowest speed @ which nominal sound quality and persistence of vision (necessary for the illusion of motion) would be maintained, not for any aesthetic purpose. A good 30fps print should frankly look stunning, and would only be bested by ShowScan (60fps).

 

[MatthewA]

I'll be at the screening tomorrow night. I'll let you know how it went.

 

[warnerbro]

I'm going to the screening tonight in Burbank.

 

[benbess]

Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H





Part of the reason for harvesting the image @ higher resolution is that downconversion from 8K, 6K, 4K, what have you, results in more detail being retained than if you go ahead and harvest @ 2K. It's the same reason why DVDs from HD transfers look better than those transferred in SD resolution, and why VistaVision films looked better than films shot flat 4-perf.


Think of it this way: what looks better? A 1080p image downrezzed to 720p, or a 480p image scaled up to 1080p? While the 480p image may have more lines, it's trying to fill in information that didn't exist in the first place (which can lead to questionable decisions being made by the scaling engine), while the 720p image is subtracting pixels to fit the display. It will look sharper and more faithful to the original image.


As for 30fps, this also results in a more detailed image (by virtue of using more film), and less judder than a 24fps film. Remember 24fps was chosen because it was the slowest speed @ which nominal sound quality and persistence of vision (necessary for the illusion of motion) would be maintained, not for any aesthetic purpose. A good 30fps print should frankly look stunning, and would only be bested by ShowScan (60fps).

Stephen: Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense.


60 FPS! wow....!



I'm also going to Sound tonight in the theater. Starts at 6:30. I'll try to post a quick comment on it late tonight or tomorrow.

 

[benbess]

Originally Posted by RolandL




Oklahoma! was not the first 65mm movie - http://widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingto1.htm

Yes. I've seen the 70mm version of the 1930 John Wayne film The Big Trail--although only on tv. It's a pretty good Western, I'd say, and would make a nice blu-ray. I doubt it'll ever make it to blu, but....well, Wayne is a selling point, so I suppose there is a small chance of it. I think the 70mm version is in pretty good shape.

 

[john a hunter]

Originally Posted by benbess



I think the 70mm version is in pretty good shape.

Unfortunately not, if I remember correctly from when the DVD came out. The 70 mm version not longer exists-it's only now in 35mm.The 70mm elements are unusable.

 

[Brianruns10]

I believe you are correct. As I recall, the o-neg existed at the MOMA, but was too fragile to handle. A specialist was brought in who made a 35mm anamorphic fine grain master from the neg, which is how it survives today.


Another early 70mm film, "The Bat Whispers," survives in both 35mm and 70mm.

 

[benbess]

I just saw the restored Sounds of Music in the theater. It looked magnificent to me. And the film is as wonderful as ever. I was admiring it not just as a technical thing, but because it just felt more viscerally immediate and involving moment by moment. It's a blu-ray I will be adding to my collection when it becomes available.


Unfortunately the audience in my local theater was small--only a few dozen. But everyone seemed to really enjoy it.